![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the following two RS-supported sentences be kept in this bio or purged so that readers don't see it?
Sources: Slate [2], WGN-TV [3], International Business Times [4], WQAD-TV [5], Fox News [6]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should a 1-2 sentence summary of Duggar's admission of infidelity following his widely publicized involvement in the Ashley Madison data breach be included in lede?
Please do not engage in an edit war on the section title. This was just a report until Josh apologized for the alleged sexual assaults. The media has been describing the event as a scandal. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Dmarquard ( talk) 01:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that we not avoid the use of the terms Sexual assault and Molestation in regard to Duggar's confessions of "fondling" under-age girls against their will. Please see the article on Sexual assault, which defines sexual assault as, "any non-consensual sexual touching of a person." Josh Duggar has clearly admitted to this. Therefore, he has admitted to sexual assault. -- Crunch ( talk) 00:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
The Category:American Sex Offenders which was recently added [9] seems like it may be a WP:BLP concern. Joshua Duggar was never convicted of any sex offense. Also, he was a child himself when this occurred. Do they put children on the sex offender lists in the U.S? -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 23:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
The type of abuse should be clarified (as much as it is possible within the framework of BLP). According to sources the abuse consisted of more than "fondling the breasts and genitals while the victim was asleep", and included sexually assaulting the girls when they were awake. See discussion here: Talk:19_Kids_and_Counting#What_did_the_abuse_consist_of.3F.
2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:5679:C32C ( talk) 02:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Please see this: Talk:19_Kids_and_Counting#Contradictions_between_this_article_and_the_.22Josh_Duggar.22_article. 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AA7A ( talk) 02:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Let's clarify the issue of Josh Duggar's age, the age of the victims, and the fact that Duggar was never charged with a crime. Josh Duggar has not been charged with, or convicted of, sexual assault. Therefore, we cannot say he "has committed sexual assault." But he has admitted to sexual assault. Fondling someone's breasts and genitals without their consent is sexual assault, by definition. The fact that he was never charged or convicted does not negate the significance of his admission. -- Crunch ( talk) 12:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Crunch I recently removed Category: Child Sexual Abuse and Category: Sexual Abuse Cover-Up which you added with edit summary "adding general topic categories that were removed for no stated reason" [14]. I don't recall these specific categories being in the article previously, but the sexual abuse cover-up category seems to be a BLP violation. It is true that the gossip magazine In Touch and Gawker has interpreted Jim Bob Duggar's actions as a "cover-up" but we'd need better sourcing for a claim that amounts to criminal misconduct per BLP. I'm not aware of any sources regarding law enforcement describing Duggar's actions as a cover-up or any charges related to such. Also, the category child sexual abuse define sexual abuse as "any form of sexual activity involving children and adults as partners" [15]. This wouldn't apply here because he wasn't an adult at the time.-- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 19:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
It would be appropriate to add a photo, but I've yet to find a suitably licensed one. Anyone else want to try looking? Since he's currently living, we can only use photos where the photographer has truly licensed it as a free image (per NFCC) which is rather restrictive. Dragons flight ( talk) 23:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Apparently, User:StAnselm objected to mentioning that several of the victims were his sisters, calling the claim "very dubious". It's actually pretty unambiguous in the original redacted report [17], it says for example:
I could go on, but it is pretty hard to read the primary source and not conclude that some of the victims were his sisters.
The secondary sources are more mixed. Some state explicitly that his victims include four sisters ( Daily Mail, Inquistr, Fox News, Politico, US News & World Report), others state it as some of the victims were his sisters ( TV guide, TMZ, Hollywood Reporter, IB Times, The Guardian, Star Tribune, etc.), and still others are very cautious and/or avoid any implication the victims were or were not his sisters ( USA Today, People, E! Online, Washington Post, Christian Post).
Some of the latter publishers are presumably just being very cautious, but some of them might also be choosing not to mention the sisters out of a desire to protect the victims from any additional harm. Personally, I think there is more than enough sourcing and evidence to say that at least some of his victims included his sisters. That said, the question of harming the victims does give me a little pause. Should we avoid mentioning his sisters, out of a desire to avoid any further harm to them? I'm not really sure, but I would welcome other opinions. Dragons flight ( talk) 12:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Someone wrote that Duggar was "between 14 and 15 years old" during the incident - then @ BoboMeowCat: put back text that he was '14-15' because he had 'passed his 14th birthday'. [18] To me, this seems very unclear on the concept of what it means to be '14', i.e., to have had 14 birthdays but not yet 15. [note: I see a comment above about a later incident. March 2003 would be the month of his 15th birthday; nonetheless, we don't really know by reading the primary police report or the almost-primary InTouchWeekly report whether the 'incident' was the time this happened or the time it was reported. We know the kid was sent away on March 17, with his birthday on March 3, so it would be much too much to assume he was 15 when any of this happened, especially when the secondary sources don't say that.
While we are at it, does someone have the rundown on whether the earlier incidents were all when he was 14, or would '13-14' (i.e. between his 13th and 15th birthdays!) be accurate? Wnt ( talk) 11:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Josh Duggar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article on Josh Duggar says that he molested five girls when he was 14 years old. However, numerous articles have stated that he was involved in that behavior between the ages of 14 and 15 years old. I propose that the article be edited to reflect that information. There was at least one incident in March 2003, when Josh Duggar would have been 15 years old. [1] 2601:9:4F80:9CE:60D0:8A93:D178:D432 ( talk) 07:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
This ads another dimension to the story: Duggar Molestation Case — Another Bombshell Revealed: Josh Sued the Arkansas Department of Human Services. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
A sentence about his education should be added. He was homeschooled by his mother and didn't go to college.
He has a GED. Source: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithgoespop/2013/03/josh-duggar-says-hes-moving-to-dc-to-work-in-politics/ (And if you watch their TV show, they say that all of their children take the GED test at age 16.)
Sources that say he was homeschooled:
www.frcaction.org/josh-duggar
This source says they use
Bill Gothard's Bible-based homeschooling program Advanced Training Institute
http://gawker.com/the-duggar-homeschool-programs-terrifying-advice-on-sex-1706406324
http://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniemcneal/a-homeschooling-program-promoted-by-the-duggars-has-troublin#.tbMM543vO
12.180.133.18 (
talk) 18:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
The intro currently says the abuse took place "while they were asleep and sometimes while awake without permission." This is odd wording. A child can't legally give "permission" for molestation. I'm deleting the words "without permission." Sadiemonster ( talk) 13:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Josh Duggar confessed to his father Jim Bob Duggar on THREE separate occasions to multiple acts of sexual molestation against his sisters and a family friend, according to a new police report obtained exclusively by In Touch magazine. The document also makes clear that Josh was 15 years old when he molested his 5-year-old sister and committed at least SEVEN acts of sexual molestation. [...] the Washington County Sheriff’s document makes it clear that despite Josh’s chilling confessions the Duggars waited at least 16 months before contacting authorities about the molestations [19] - Cwobeel (talk) 02:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Am I correct that Wikipedia policies allow for identification of victims if they are currently over 18 (and properly referenced), but does not allow for identification of victims who are currently still under 18 even if a proper reference for that exists? Naraht ( talk) 17:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
See here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/tv/ct-josh-duggar-record-destroyed-20150522-story.html
There is a serious concern that Wikipedia may be complicit in allowing illegally obtained personal information to be displayed in a defamatory manner. A judge has already ordered that the report and all copies of it be destroyed, which In Touch Weekly refused to do, and Wikipedia had, until I added the information about the order, refused to even detail the fact that it was deemed to have been illegally obtained! Certainly, there is no doubt that we must, by law, include that section, and there is a significant concern that Wikipedia may be breaking the law by having such an article. I thought that in BLP cases we err on the side of caution. If doing that, we shouldn't have this article at all, I think. If we must have it, we must include the fact that a judge has ordered that the exposure of the record was illegal and ordered for all copies of the report to be destroyed. Mister Sneeze A Lot ( talk) 05:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Josh Duggar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add that Josh Duggar, age 14 or 15, sexually molested his then-5-year-old sister under her clothes when she was sitting on his lap and he was reading a book to her.
As the Wikipedia article is written now, it makes it seem that he just touched teenaged sisters over their clothes while they were sleeping (which is how the Duggars are spinning this).
Sources:
12.180.133.18 ( talk) 13:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
As a quick comment, 6 months ago, I would have been personally against including anything from In Touch Weekly in an article, and they may yet go back to Weekly World News level reporting. But someone seems to have actually found that real news reporting works... Naraht ( talk) 21:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The Ashley Madison data dump contains tons of unverified information. Unless there is solid confirmation that Josh was really involved, the BLP policy demands great caution. Gawker is not an acceptable source. I can't log in to edit the page, but this needs attention.
This ain't tabloid stuff. The notability of this individual is directly related to specific values that he proposed through his public life, which are in direct contradiction with joining Ashley Madison. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I understand the concern, and will patiently wait until other sources report on this before pressing the case for inclusion. But the reasoning for inclusion I stated above are valid: we have an article on a living person based on its notability (otherwise we would not have such an article). If the person's notability is due to espousing certain views, then material that is related to these views, be these positive, negative, or neutral are to be included for NPOV, providing that the sources are reliable. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Other sources:
- Cwobeel (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
... and presumption in favor of privacy, does not apply here whatsoever. Read the policy. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree that presumption in favor of privacy does not apply. This kind of content, however, needs to be written just right so there is no editorializing, no synthesis, and in no way attempts to lead the reader to any conclusions regarding Duggar's alleged involvement in Ashley Madison. Do I think it's true? Yes, most certainly. Do I think he's a hypocrite? Yes, and I also think he's a confused individual who is a product of his parents' choices and expectations. But none of that should be a part of how I would edit this article. Nor should such personal judgments and feelings be part of how anyone edits this article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
This is getting even more weird (see the updates in that article) [29]. As of now, the apology page is no longer available. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that a separate subtitle is really necessary as the relevant information could be filed under "Personal life", but if a separate subtitle really is necessary the one currently used in the article (i.e., "Ashley Madison data breach") is totally unacceptable. It sounds like Mr. Duggar did the hacking which is certainly not what happened here. Could someone please correct this as soon as possible? 184.162.103.228 ( talk) 00:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
WP:SNOW, clearly consensus is against this being included. There is absolutely no point allowing this to run for another 29 days when it will not be supported. Mdann52 ( talk) 17:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
A wide breadth of RS, including CNN, CBS News, The Daily Beast, etc. have taken time to report on specific preferences contained in Duggar's alleged accounts. Should it be removed? Specifically:
Second, should this be illustrated with a generic image for those who do not know what a sex toy is? To clarify: the RfC is asking two questions, for (a) consensus to remove (not add) the above line (as it existed at the time the RfC was opened but was removed by an editor following the discussion beginning), and, (b) to add (not remove) an image. BlueSalix ( talk) 04:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC) Survey
DiscussionAs you have chosen to edit war instead of respect WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, this discussion is made not in good faith. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Are you done? Really hoping so. If you're not, you should be. None of this has anything to do with the article. --
WV ●
✉
✓ 05:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC) This article is off my watch list. Have fun without me. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
|
Hello,
I would like to create a new page for Josh Duggar's spouse, Anna Duggar. I have created this page and would like to edit Josh Duggar's page to link back to this page where Anna Keller or Anna Duggar is referenced.
Thanks! Sugarmommy6745 ( talk) 22:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the following two RS-supported sentences be kept in this bio or purged so that readers don't see it?
Sources: Slate [2], WGN-TV [3], International Business Times [4], WQAD-TV [5], Fox News [6]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should a 1-2 sentence summary of Duggar's admission of infidelity following his widely publicized involvement in the Ashley Madison data breach be included in lede?
Please do not engage in an edit war on the section title. This was just a report until Josh apologized for the alleged sexual assaults. The media has been describing the event as a scandal. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Dmarquard ( talk) 01:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that we not avoid the use of the terms Sexual assault and Molestation in regard to Duggar's confessions of "fondling" under-age girls against their will. Please see the article on Sexual assault, which defines sexual assault as, "any non-consensual sexual touching of a person." Josh Duggar has clearly admitted to this. Therefore, he has admitted to sexual assault. -- Crunch ( talk) 00:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
The Category:American Sex Offenders which was recently added [9] seems like it may be a WP:BLP concern. Joshua Duggar was never convicted of any sex offense. Also, he was a child himself when this occurred. Do they put children on the sex offender lists in the U.S? -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 23:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
The type of abuse should be clarified (as much as it is possible within the framework of BLP). According to sources the abuse consisted of more than "fondling the breasts and genitals while the victim was asleep", and included sexually assaulting the girls when they were awake. See discussion here: Talk:19_Kids_and_Counting#What_did_the_abuse_consist_of.3F.
2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:5679:C32C ( talk) 02:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Please see this: Talk:19_Kids_and_Counting#Contradictions_between_this_article_and_the_.22Josh_Duggar.22_article. 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AA7A ( talk) 02:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Let's clarify the issue of Josh Duggar's age, the age of the victims, and the fact that Duggar was never charged with a crime. Josh Duggar has not been charged with, or convicted of, sexual assault. Therefore, we cannot say he "has committed sexual assault." But he has admitted to sexual assault. Fondling someone's breasts and genitals without their consent is sexual assault, by definition. The fact that he was never charged or convicted does not negate the significance of his admission. -- Crunch ( talk) 12:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Crunch I recently removed Category: Child Sexual Abuse and Category: Sexual Abuse Cover-Up which you added with edit summary "adding general topic categories that were removed for no stated reason" [14]. I don't recall these specific categories being in the article previously, but the sexual abuse cover-up category seems to be a BLP violation. It is true that the gossip magazine In Touch and Gawker has interpreted Jim Bob Duggar's actions as a "cover-up" but we'd need better sourcing for a claim that amounts to criminal misconduct per BLP. I'm not aware of any sources regarding law enforcement describing Duggar's actions as a cover-up or any charges related to such. Also, the category child sexual abuse define sexual abuse as "any form of sexual activity involving children and adults as partners" [15]. This wouldn't apply here because he wasn't an adult at the time.-- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 19:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
It would be appropriate to add a photo, but I've yet to find a suitably licensed one. Anyone else want to try looking? Since he's currently living, we can only use photos where the photographer has truly licensed it as a free image (per NFCC) which is rather restrictive. Dragons flight ( talk) 23:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Apparently, User:StAnselm objected to mentioning that several of the victims were his sisters, calling the claim "very dubious". It's actually pretty unambiguous in the original redacted report [17], it says for example:
I could go on, but it is pretty hard to read the primary source and not conclude that some of the victims were his sisters.
The secondary sources are more mixed. Some state explicitly that his victims include four sisters ( Daily Mail, Inquistr, Fox News, Politico, US News & World Report), others state it as some of the victims were his sisters ( TV guide, TMZ, Hollywood Reporter, IB Times, The Guardian, Star Tribune, etc.), and still others are very cautious and/or avoid any implication the victims were or were not his sisters ( USA Today, People, E! Online, Washington Post, Christian Post).
Some of the latter publishers are presumably just being very cautious, but some of them might also be choosing not to mention the sisters out of a desire to protect the victims from any additional harm. Personally, I think there is more than enough sourcing and evidence to say that at least some of his victims included his sisters. That said, the question of harming the victims does give me a little pause. Should we avoid mentioning his sisters, out of a desire to avoid any further harm to them? I'm not really sure, but I would welcome other opinions. Dragons flight ( talk) 12:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Someone wrote that Duggar was "between 14 and 15 years old" during the incident - then @ BoboMeowCat: put back text that he was '14-15' because he had 'passed his 14th birthday'. [18] To me, this seems very unclear on the concept of what it means to be '14', i.e., to have had 14 birthdays but not yet 15. [note: I see a comment above about a later incident. March 2003 would be the month of his 15th birthday; nonetheless, we don't really know by reading the primary police report or the almost-primary InTouchWeekly report whether the 'incident' was the time this happened or the time it was reported. We know the kid was sent away on March 17, with his birthday on March 3, so it would be much too much to assume he was 15 when any of this happened, especially when the secondary sources don't say that.
While we are at it, does someone have the rundown on whether the earlier incidents were all when he was 14, or would '13-14' (i.e. between his 13th and 15th birthdays!) be accurate? Wnt ( talk) 11:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Josh Duggar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article on Josh Duggar says that he molested five girls when he was 14 years old. However, numerous articles have stated that he was involved in that behavior between the ages of 14 and 15 years old. I propose that the article be edited to reflect that information. There was at least one incident in March 2003, when Josh Duggar would have been 15 years old. [1] 2601:9:4F80:9CE:60D0:8A93:D178:D432 ( talk) 07:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
This ads another dimension to the story: Duggar Molestation Case — Another Bombshell Revealed: Josh Sued the Arkansas Department of Human Services. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
A sentence about his education should be added. He was homeschooled by his mother and didn't go to college.
He has a GED. Source: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithgoespop/2013/03/josh-duggar-says-hes-moving-to-dc-to-work-in-politics/ (And if you watch their TV show, they say that all of their children take the GED test at age 16.)
Sources that say he was homeschooled:
www.frcaction.org/josh-duggar
This source says they use
Bill Gothard's Bible-based homeschooling program Advanced Training Institute
http://gawker.com/the-duggar-homeschool-programs-terrifying-advice-on-sex-1706406324
http://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniemcneal/a-homeschooling-program-promoted-by-the-duggars-has-troublin#.tbMM543vO
12.180.133.18 (
talk) 18:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
The intro currently says the abuse took place "while they were asleep and sometimes while awake without permission." This is odd wording. A child can't legally give "permission" for molestation. I'm deleting the words "without permission." Sadiemonster ( talk) 13:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Josh Duggar confessed to his father Jim Bob Duggar on THREE separate occasions to multiple acts of sexual molestation against his sisters and a family friend, according to a new police report obtained exclusively by In Touch magazine. The document also makes clear that Josh was 15 years old when he molested his 5-year-old sister and committed at least SEVEN acts of sexual molestation. [...] the Washington County Sheriff’s document makes it clear that despite Josh’s chilling confessions the Duggars waited at least 16 months before contacting authorities about the molestations [19] - Cwobeel (talk) 02:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Am I correct that Wikipedia policies allow for identification of victims if they are currently over 18 (and properly referenced), but does not allow for identification of victims who are currently still under 18 even if a proper reference for that exists? Naraht ( talk) 17:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
See here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/tv/ct-josh-duggar-record-destroyed-20150522-story.html
There is a serious concern that Wikipedia may be complicit in allowing illegally obtained personal information to be displayed in a defamatory manner. A judge has already ordered that the report and all copies of it be destroyed, which In Touch Weekly refused to do, and Wikipedia had, until I added the information about the order, refused to even detail the fact that it was deemed to have been illegally obtained! Certainly, there is no doubt that we must, by law, include that section, and there is a significant concern that Wikipedia may be breaking the law by having such an article. I thought that in BLP cases we err on the side of caution. If doing that, we shouldn't have this article at all, I think. If we must have it, we must include the fact that a judge has ordered that the exposure of the record was illegal and ordered for all copies of the report to be destroyed. Mister Sneeze A Lot ( talk) 05:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Josh Duggar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add that Josh Duggar, age 14 or 15, sexually molested his then-5-year-old sister under her clothes when she was sitting on his lap and he was reading a book to her.
As the Wikipedia article is written now, it makes it seem that he just touched teenaged sisters over their clothes while they were sleeping (which is how the Duggars are spinning this).
Sources:
12.180.133.18 ( talk) 13:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
As a quick comment, 6 months ago, I would have been personally against including anything from In Touch Weekly in an article, and they may yet go back to Weekly World News level reporting. But someone seems to have actually found that real news reporting works... Naraht ( talk) 21:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The Ashley Madison data dump contains tons of unverified information. Unless there is solid confirmation that Josh was really involved, the BLP policy demands great caution. Gawker is not an acceptable source. I can't log in to edit the page, but this needs attention.
This ain't tabloid stuff. The notability of this individual is directly related to specific values that he proposed through his public life, which are in direct contradiction with joining Ashley Madison. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I understand the concern, and will patiently wait until other sources report on this before pressing the case for inclusion. But the reasoning for inclusion I stated above are valid: we have an article on a living person based on its notability (otherwise we would not have such an article). If the person's notability is due to espousing certain views, then material that is related to these views, be these positive, negative, or neutral are to be included for NPOV, providing that the sources are reliable. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Other sources:
- Cwobeel (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
... and presumption in favor of privacy, does not apply here whatsoever. Read the policy. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree that presumption in favor of privacy does not apply. This kind of content, however, needs to be written just right so there is no editorializing, no synthesis, and in no way attempts to lead the reader to any conclusions regarding Duggar's alleged involvement in Ashley Madison. Do I think it's true? Yes, most certainly. Do I think he's a hypocrite? Yes, and I also think he's a confused individual who is a product of his parents' choices and expectations. But none of that should be a part of how I would edit this article. Nor should such personal judgments and feelings be part of how anyone edits this article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
This is getting even more weird (see the updates in that article) [29]. As of now, the apology page is no longer available. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that a separate subtitle is really necessary as the relevant information could be filed under "Personal life", but if a separate subtitle really is necessary the one currently used in the article (i.e., "Ashley Madison data breach") is totally unacceptable. It sounds like Mr. Duggar did the hacking which is certainly not what happened here. Could someone please correct this as soon as possible? 184.162.103.228 ( talk) 00:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
WP:SNOW, clearly consensus is against this being included. There is absolutely no point allowing this to run for another 29 days when it will not be supported. Mdann52 ( talk) 17:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
A wide breadth of RS, including CNN, CBS News, The Daily Beast, etc. have taken time to report on specific preferences contained in Duggar's alleged accounts. Should it be removed? Specifically:
Second, should this be illustrated with a generic image for those who do not know what a sex toy is? To clarify: the RfC is asking two questions, for (a) consensus to remove (not add) the above line (as it existed at the time the RfC was opened but was removed by an editor following the discussion beginning), and, (b) to add (not remove) an image. BlueSalix ( talk) 04:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC) Survey
DiscussionAs you have chosen to edit war instead of respect WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, this discussion is made not in good faith. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Are you done? Really hoping so. If you're not, you should be. None of this has anything to do with the article. --
WV ●
✉
✓ 05:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC) This article is off my watch list. Have fun without me. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
|
Hello,
I would like to create a new page for Josh Duggar's spouse, Anna Duggar. I have created this page and would like to edit Josh Duggar's page to link back to this page where Anna Keller or Anna Duggar is referenced.
Thanks! Sugarmommy6745 ( talk) 22:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)